SUNITA PURUSHOTTAM VIRGINCAR, REP. BY POA, VISSU P. VIRGINCAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4, MARGAO AND 2 ORS

PDF · subscribers
WP/496/2023HC BombayHCBM05002303202104 July 2024Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. S. KARNIK,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VALMIKI MENEZES14 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the assessment order dated 28.03.2023 and the consequential demand notices dated 28.03.2023 were liable to be quashed and set aside. The Court found that the deceased assessee was not afforded adequate opportunity of being heard before the passing of the assessment order, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. The judgment notes that the deceased was suffering from a serious illness and passed away soon after the order was passed, which supports the claim of inadequate opportunity. The Court reasoned that a fair hearing is a fundamental aspect of any assessment proceeding, and its absence vitiates the order. The ratio decidendi is that an assessment order passed without adhering to the principles of natural justice is void ab initio. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned order and notices and directed the Assessing Officer to issue a fresh notice to the legal heirs of the deceased assessee, affording them an opportunity to present their case, and thereafter, to pass a fresh assessment order in accordance with law. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

This case involves a writ petition filed by the legal heirs of the deceased assessee, Smt. Sunita Purushottam Virgincar, challenging an order passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 4, Margao. The assessment years in question are not explicitly stated, but the dispute pertains to additions made to the income of the deceased assessee. The petitioners are aggrieved by the assessment order and the subsequent demand notices issued by the revenue. The procedural history indicates that the petitioners are seeking to quash these notices and have the assessment reopened. The core of the dispute revolves around the treatment of certain amounts as income of the deceased assessee.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned assessment order dated 28.03.2023 and the consequential demand notices dated 28.03.2023 are liable to be quashed and set aside on the ground that they were passed without affording the deceased assessee adequate opportunity of being heard, thus violating principles of natural justice? Assessee's Contention: The petitioners argue that the assessment order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. They contend that the deceased assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present her case or respond to the additions proposed by the Assessing Officer. They rely on the fact that the deceased was suffering from a serious illness and passed away shortly after the assessment order was passed, suggesting that her condition might have prevented her from effectively participating in the assessment proceedings. They seek to quash the assessment order and demand notices. Revenue's Contention: The revenue has not filed a reply, and no specific contentions are recorded in the judgment for the revenue regarding the violation of natural justice or the merits of the assessment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 292B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
10-WP-496-2023 1 14 Niti IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO.496 OF 2023 1. SMT. SUNITA PURUSHOTTAM VIRGINCAR, (since deceased, through LRs) Indian National, about 85 years of age, r/o. Jose Inacio Loyola Road, Margao – Goa 403601. PAN: ABAPV7967Q, Duly represented by her lawful Power of Attorney, Shri. Vissu Purshottam Virgincar, about 57 years of age, Indian National, s/o. Smt. Sunita Purshottam Virgincar, r/o. Jose Inacio Loyola Road, Margao - Goa 403601, duly authorized by the Petitioner herein vide the Power of Attorney dated 10.08.2021. 1a. MR. VISSU VIRGINCAR, son of late Mrs. Sunita Virgincar, aged about 61 years, married, Indian National, businessman; 1b. MRS. LINDA VIRGINCAR, wife of Mr. Vissu Virgincar, aged about 57 years, married, Indian National, housewife. Both residents of H No 478, Near Maruti Mandir, Layamati Davorlim, Navelim Salcete South Goa 403801. 2024:BHC-GOA:1086-DB 10-WP-496-2023 2 14 1c. MRS. GOPIKA SHEKHAR ΡΟΥ RAITURCAR, daughter of Late Mrs. Sunita Virgincar, aged about 62 years, married, Indian National, housewife and her husband; 1d. MR. SHEKHAR POΥ RAITURCAR, son of Mr. Govind Poy Raiturcar, aged 65 years, married Indian National, Both Residents of A 406 4th Floor Tridentia Panache Near Chinmay Mission, Landmark Gogol Margao 403601. le. MRS. SEEMA GAURISH NAIK, daughter of Late Mrs. Sunita Virgincar, aged about 58 years, married, Indian National, housewife and her husband; 1f. MR. GAURISH ANANTA ΝΑȤȥ, son of Mr. Ananta Naik, aged about 62 years, married Indian National, Both Residents of resident of C/o Kitchen Love, Ground Floor Apartment, Behind Loyala High School, Comba Margao - Goa. ... PETITIONERS Versus 1. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 4, MARGAO, 10-WP-496-2023 3 14 Having his office at Blessing Pioneer Complex, Old Market, Opp. District Court, Margao - Goa 403601. 2. ADDITIONAL/ JOINT/ DEPUTY ASSISTANT/ COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX, National Faceless Assessment Centre/ National e-Assessment Centre, New Delhi. 3. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, Having his office at Aayakar Bhavan, Plot No.5, EDC Complex, Patto Plaza, Panaji, Goa - 403 001. … RESPONDENTS Mr Rahul Sarda (through V.C.) with Mr Gaurang Panandikar and Ms E. Dukle, Advocates for the Petitioner. Ms Susan Linhares, Standing Counsel for the Respondents. CORAM: M. S. KARNIK & VALMIKI MENEZES, JJ. Reserved on: Pronounced on: 27th JUNE 2024 4th JULY 2024

JUDGMENT : (Per M.S. Karnik, J.)

1.

2. 10-WP-496-2023 4 14

3.

4. ₹ ₹ ₹ ₹ 5. ₹ ₹ ₹ ₹

10-WP-496-2023 5 14

6.

7. ₹ ₹ ₹16,54,200/- ₹2,78,52,800/- ₹3,59,50,000/- ₹64,43,000/-

10-WP-496-2023 6 14

8.

9. ₹3,59,50,000/- ₹

10-WP-496-2023 7 14

10.

₹ 11. 1 (2015) 375 ITR 308 (Bom.) 2 (2019) 411 ITR 207 (Bom.) 3 WP No.1145 of 2017 decided on 06.10.2021

10-WP-496-2023 8 14

12.

10-WP-496-2023 9 14

13.

14. 10-WP-496-2023 10 14

₹

15.

₹ ₹

10-WP-496-2023 11 14

₹ ₹ 16. 10-WP-496-2023 12 14

17.

10-WP-496-2023 13 14

18.

19. 10-WP-496-2023 14 14

20.21.

VALMIKI MENEZES, J.

M. S. KARNIK, J. Signed by: NITI KISHOR HALDANKAR Designation: Private Secretary Date: 11/07/2024 11:01:02

More judgments on Section 292B

All 782 judgments and leading authorities on Section 292B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →